In which our regular writers toss around
subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Tom: Let me set this up for you, IC.
Dr. Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto professor whose struggle
against political correctness we discussed at length here a few weeks ago, gives an extensive interview with two writers for the Winter 2016 edition of C2C Journal about the
assault on free speech in Canada.
So one
of his interviewers asks him about what it was about his refusal to buckle to
the forces of “social justice” at U of T that has set off such a firestorm and
his answer is that “There was something I said I wouldn’t
do. That took the general and made it specific.”
The Specific Logos
But it gets better. Peterson goes on:
“In Christianity, there’s the idea of the general Christ, that’s the ‘Word’ that God used to speak chaos into order. Then there’s the specific Christ, a carpenter in the Middle East 2,000 years ago. So there’s this weird notion in Christianity between this general principle, which is the logos roughly speaking; the logos is the thing that mediates between order and chaos and is a very abstract principle; and the specific human being who had a specific identity tied to a specific time and place, making the archetypal individual, and that makes an unbelievably compelling story. The archetypal is too abstract. It’s like saying ‘the good guys won’ — there’s no story there. I think that what I did was make the general concrete and specific, and drew a line.”
That has got to be the coolest digression I’ve ever seen in an interview. I don’t
know how those guys kept up with him.
Maps of Meaning
Immanuel Can: Dr. Peterson,
according to his autobio, attended conservative Protestant services with his
mother when he was a child. His father was agnostic, he says. But “Christian
morality permeated our household, conditioning our expectations and
interpersonal responses, in the most intimate of manners” (Maps of Meaning,
xi). He writes that as a young man he rejected the faith because he didn’t
believe in miracles such as the virgin birth. For a time, he became “mildly
socialist” and was a great fan of Orwell, but soon abandoned politics for
psychology — prompted especially by his realization of his own human “capacity
for evil”, as he puts it, particularly in association with beliefs. That’s
where he’s made his career … studying unwarranted beliefs, propaganda, ideology,
mythology and so on.
He’s essentially agnostic himself, so far as I can tell, but very interested in
religion. His major influences seem to have been Jung and Freud, and his
analysis of beliefs certainly shows strong influences from the former. He’s big
on the idea of archetypes. But how his Christian upbringing might feed into all
this is the most interesting bit.
Battling the PC Left
Tom: Yes, let’s start
with that. Peterson is actually number three now on my list of men brought up
in Christian households who have not embraced the faith of their parents, and
yet are among the biggest names today in taking a stand against Leftist fascism
and political correctness. All three have shown notable courage in the face of
major personal attacks from the media, and in Peterson’s case, from students
and administration at work.
The
other two are Mike Cernovich, an internet self-help guru and citizen journalist
who trolled the Left brilliantly during Trump’s election and led several news
cycles by turning up evidence of Progressive malfeasance the media was determined to ignore; and Stefan Molyneux, a YouTube philosopher and interviewer with
millions of daily followers, who is leading the Right intellectually.
All
three would tell you that Western civilization would not exist and cannot continue
in the absence of a genuinely Christian influence, and are prepared to take
whatever lumps the Left dishes out to defend whatever is left of it —
which in my opinion is not a great deal.
Just Plain Good
IC: Here’s my
explanation of that: exposure to Jesus Christ is just plain good for human
beings. A person who has some knowledge of him — any knowledge of
him, even just knowledge about him — will be better for it, every
time. If you’ve been raised in earshot of his word, you are likely to be all
the wiser for that. And these men clearly have some sense of truth,
reasonableness and justice, even if they aren’t (yet) Christians.
Tom: I think that’s
very true. The coming millennial reign of Christ will be good for the entire
world, not just for Jews. The nations who humble themselves before the rightful
Ruler of this world when he is finally reinstalled and enjoy the immense
benefits his leadership provides will be far better off for it in this life than those who foolishly resist him — and that’s entirely apart from the
issue of salvation.
But
how much happier those of us who know him personally.
The General and Specific Christ
Let
me ask you what you think of Peterson’s “general” and “specific” Christ idea.
I understand what he’s saying about archetypes and myths being “too
abstract”. It’s something we were always told in writing class: that a specific
statement resonates with readers far better than some vague generality.
IC: I suppose that’s
true. People do like specifics. And there are many situations in which the
specifics matter more than any “mythic resonance” that one draws out of
them … or rather, any meaning they might have is actually dependent on the
thing having actually happened.
Imagine Moses telling the people of Israel, “Well, God isn’t actually going to part the Red Sea, but try to think of yourselves as delivered anyway.” Or think
of what Paul says about the resurrection: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.” There would simply be no mythic value or archetypal resonance of those if they were not real events.
Tom: Absolutely, and the incarnation had to be a real event too. A word from God — even a Word that was God — that dwelt only in eternity could never fully resonate with
mankind. God knew that and accounted for it. So in assuming flesh and becoming a man, the Lord Jesus made the general specific. He made what was formerly only archetypal now individual, or if you prefer, he made the myth concrete:
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life — the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us …”
John is saying much the same in different
words: “That which was from the beginning … was made manifest to us”.
Peterson may not quite get that. He may only be talking about two different levels of myth or archetype: general and
specific. But there’s a reality behind what he’s saying than he may not
have fully grasped.
The Biggest Truth in the Universe
IC: Yes, I agree. What struck you about that?
Tom: Well, he’s got
the biggest truth in the universe in his hands — that the Word was made
flesh and dwelt among us. That’s one of the single most powerful sentences ever
constructed. Really understand it, and you’re golden for eternity. But what it
becomes to the purely intellectual mind is trivial by comparison: for Peterson,
it’s just a convenient way of illustrating to a reporter how one little U of T
professor was able to become a flashpoint and a rallying cry in the battle
against political correctness. (Unless it’s just his way of sneaking a potent
spiritual truth into an interview; I don’t want to assume anything about
his motives.)
But
on the evidence, it seems to me you’ve got a very smart guy managing to miss
his own point, which is the same problem I’ve previously encountered with
Molyneux and Cernovich — though Peterson’s in a different intellectual
league. They get the logic of Christianity. They get why it works. They want it
around. They’re even willing to fight for some principle or principles
distantly derived from it. They just can’t bring themselves to personally submit
to the Christ of Christianity.
Camel, Meet Needle
IC: Yes, that’s well put. The Lord said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. I sometimes wonder if the same isn’t true of intellectuals. It’s not that they’re too smart; it’s that they’re too proud, too fiercely devoted to the Sinatra-esque “I thought it my way”. So they see the wisdom of Christianity, but it’s Someone Else’s idea: and they don’t want to bow to that. They’d rather borrow some aspects of it, but drop the necessity of confessing Christ.
Tom: Oh dear. You might have nailed that. I never thought about it that way. Put another way, “Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
IC: Yes, quite. But if I’m an academic, a book author, a university
professor, a blogger with a substantial intellectual following, or something
like that, my whole stock-in-trade is the credibility of my personal
intelligence. I spend my whole life proving to everybody I’m as smart as I
think I am, and that you should think so too: but now you want me to submit
that to God? How can I, without losing both my confidence in my control of
information and my credibility with those who listen to me?
Tom: So what you’re saying is something like “Whoever would save his intellectual
credibility will lose it, but whoever loses it for my sake will find it.”
IC: Yes. Or to put it
another way, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”
Intellectual Self-Sufficiency
I’m
not trying to be judgmental about those men. I understand the temptation, and
have seen it very, very often. It’s widespread among those who make their
living from their brains, and happens very naturally. These men are not
especially wicked or obdurate: they just have a particular temptation that most
of us do not. That is, intellectual self-sufficiency.
Tom: Here’s the thing: I find Cernovich, Molyneux and especially Jordan
Peterson delightful in the way they tell the truth about this world, albeit
mixed in with their own spin. They all have acuity and fluidity of expression
that I will never have. I’m impressed, and perhaps slightly jealous.
But God is not. He doesn’t care:
“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness,’ and again, ‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.’ ”
I’m excited to see these children of
Christian parents clashing with the Powers That Be. This is a good time to
disagree with the conventional wisdom and the people who are pushing it. But it only matters if you are doing it for
the sake of Truth, capital ‘T’, not because you’re a pedant, a pawn, a rebel, a
principled professor, a self-promoter or even an altruist.
“I thought it my way” will not cut it at
the Great White Throne.
No comments :
Post a Comment